The job hiring process - evolving priorities

With a slower hiring period during summer behind us, it is a good time to reflect on how hiring is being conducted. One feature in particular stand out: the evolving job description.

By a rough estimate, 99% of us have applied to a job at some point in our lives. It is a daunting, exciting, time consuming and challenging endeavor, all at once. Some of us have done it several times, and are still at it. Ageism is one obstacle that is not making this process any easier, which I wrote about here.

Over the last year or so, I have encountered an interesting phenomena that might not be limited to the nonprofit sector - the gliding focus of the job description, and the subsequent shift in expectations and qualifications of the applicants.

The scenario I am referring to is when an organization starts out seeing a gap in expertise or realizing just plain old ‘not enough boots on the ground’. A search for filling the gap begins. Competing requirements are compiled and put into a job description and qualifications document which is then posted on job boards and social media sites. Increasingly so in the nonprofit sector, a recruiter is retained to manage the process.

As gaps and needs are being exposed, often with some sense of urgency, it can also open a can of worms. Although new ideas, new areas, and new skills are identified as the need is being outlined, the job description, which has already been posted, is not likely being updated with additional areas of responsibilities, skills and requirements from the information gathered.

Job applicants are fully occupied with editing resumes, and making adjustments to cover letters after researching the organization. If it’s a rolling application procedure, applicants will hear soon; or not at all.

With applications hitting the inbox, the organization keeps noodling and envisioning a potential new colleague’s talents and what they can bring to the table. More ideas on what’s needed are popping up, like a land of opportunity.

The lucky few who passed the initial review are invited to interview with HR, if there is such a function, to take care of basic questions and to get a feel for the pool. Otherwise, the applicant is thrust directly into the arms of their potential future colleagues.

The tension is rising at the organization at the prospect of adding capacity and manpower, and more ideas are floating around as to what the position, and the person selected, will contribute.

This is the crucial moment of impending change in priorities.

Ideas that have been percolating since the announcement of the job have now taken root in the leadership and several other areas that need straightening have been identified. This process will go on for a while, often informed and inspired by the interviewees own ideas about what they have read into the job announcement, learning from the website, LinkedIn profiles, and especially on how to differentiate themselves and stand out. New ideas! Bold visions! are landing as possibilities and opportunities that can not be disregarded.

An unintended consequence of this process is that now the leadership has realized that the qualities and experiences they initially sought are no longer enough.

Enter evolving priorities in the job hiring process. In essence, this means that what was originally identified as a need, a gap of expertise, has now, with input from time and interviewing applicants, changed. What has not changed is the job description, or external communication of what the organizations is looking for.

What remains is a mismatch of what the position entails and what the organization is looking for. Making this even worse, the applicants no longer fit the idea of what’s desired. The misalignment is complete.

How do you remedy this kind of situation? How do organizations not fall into this trap? It is very understandable that what an organization is looking for will change over time; what is not is being, if not directly disingenuous, but perhaps naive and unaware of what the organization is looking for. The reorientation might be subtle but distinct.

To avoid this mismatch of needs, it is imperative to do serious due diligence of what you are looking for before embarking on hiring new staff. Is it a specialized position? Could, or should, it expand as the organizations expands? Is it a position that has similarities to other functions already filled at the organizations, or does this job break new and unchartered ground? And, does this position fill a desire of the board, or is it the result of market research of what’s needed out there to fulfill the mission and other obligations?

It is never wrong to check with people who know the organization, such as donors, other supporters, consultant, and board members, on what they imagine would enhance operations and fill the void. Engage a recruiter and listen to their advice as an outsider. Be honest with what the organization can achieve, and what you need to get there, internally. Don’t add ideas and aspirations that you might not yet have implemented; it’s hard enough to come in as a new hire to also channel and implement a new direction that might originate in an idea outside of the executive team, or is still in the dream stage. Finally, be honest with what you are ready to pay if the role is not what was originally envisioned.

Granted, a hiring process is not linear, and there are valid reasons for that. But what could be linear is to carefully assess what the organization needs, at every step, and at every point there is new input. Does the job description fit in a general sense? Should it be sharpened and be more narrow; or broader in scope? Do we need to revise? Do we need to stop and take a new look at our needs and wants?

There are instances when a job description blows up in the face of applicants - e.g. a family philanthropy director role transforming into a community foundation specialist position; an executive director job suddenly morfing into Chief of Staff; or, a nonprofit project lead consultancy suddenly becoming a for profit government grant writing position - without communicating these changes to the applicant. Keeping a job description in these situation as-is, dragging along applicants on a seemingly wild goose chase, when the focus of the new position is changing with the new insights not posted, is a failure of honesty and transparency. It is also dishonest to those applicants who addressed - and are qualified for - what was listed, while later be dismissed because they no longer fit the organization’s newly discovered needs.

At this point, you may find yourself applying for the wrong job and taken out of the race, unknowingly.

Recruiters have a huge role to play in this process, beyond just regular communication on the status of the application, any delays or regroupings (as far as they're know and/or are informed). It is hard enough to get someone to notice your application, on average a recruiter spends less than 30 seconds on a CV; and most are run through digital sorting tools. It is also a recruiter’s role to detect when there’s a shift in priorities and alert the organization to pull back and take some time to consider what they really want.

Applicants deserve transparency in the hiring process, and they also deserve honesty from the organization, running an open internal process when hiring. I have seen many ‘ideal type’ job descriptions that no-one possibly can fulfill. That is in itself disingenuous, but a topic for another blog.

Still, the perfect outcome is the perfect person for the job, and who doesn’t want that?!

Photo: Efrem Efre